So if I'm understanding this comment: this change from AACR2 RI practices doesn't really 'help' for 'future' or 'current' systems whether you come from the traditional cataloging community or from a systems background. I would still like to understand the background of the decision.
Mary Charles -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2011 10:00 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Conference names : use of annual, etc. Putting this into other terminology, where possible a conference should have an identifier that covers all instances of the conference, even though it changes location or frequency or bits of its name. It occurs to me that this is a different identification problem from that of, say, persons, who need an identifier but that identity has a single display. In this case, the conference name may display differently for each individual publication (frbr:Work). That would be hard to convey using an authority record, at least the way we conceive of them now. This seems to be a case where there may be a default display relating to the conference but an additional display form will be needed for that particular conference publication. If I think about the possible system functionality you might want, I'd say that you want a textual rendering of what the conference has called itself this time (which can probably vary a lot because many conference organizers aren't thinking about being consistent with past practice). That can display to users and would also be handy for keyword access. You also want to connect this to the identity of the conference in order to bring it together with the other times this conference met. Plus you probably want to separately encode dates and places, since these can be key to discovery. Encoding those two separately means that you can normalize them for better retrieval. There may be other data that need separation as well -- these two just popped into my head. kc Quoting "Lasater, Mary Charles" <mary.c.lasa...@vanderbilt.edu>: > I was also surprised by and concerned about this RDA change for > conference names. Would anyone be able to supply 'background' for > this decision? Is this a change because of other cataloging > practices? Supposed to reflect 'what you see' more closely or? > > Mary Charles Lasater > Authorities Coordinator > Vanderbilt University > > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and > Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg > Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 10:44 AM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: [RDA-L] Conference names : use of annual, etc. > > I noticed that in recording and constructing conferences, that it is > now allowed to use frequency terms to modify the conference, like > "annual". > I think that is a mistake, and goes against the implications of some > LCRIs that said to eliminate terms of frequency for other other > publications. > It seems to me that you want the construction for a conference to > array together, whether they were annual, bienniel, quarterly, etc. > That way they would array by year of the conference, hopefully. And > not be split by the term of frequency. What if an Annual conference > becomes a Bienniel Conference, or vice versa. I would say drop the > frequency term and only use |b Conference. > > > > -- > Gene Fieg > Cataloger/Serials Librarian > Claremont School of Theology > gf...@cst.edu<mailto:gf...@cst.edu> > -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
